PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 299.
Congressional Research Service
Version 17 · Reported to House with amendment(s) · Jun 3, 2004
Title I: Exclusion of Nonnative Species from Migratory Bird Treaty Act - Migratory Bird Treaty Reform Act of 2004 - (Sec. 102) Amends the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) to clarify that the MBTA's prohibition on taking, killing, or possessing migratory birds applies only to native migratory bird species whose occurrence in the United States results from natural biological or ecological conditions.
Excludes from coverage under the MBTA bird species occurring as the result of human assisted introduction unless the species: (1) was native to the United States and extant in 1918; (2) became extinct throughout its range thereafter; and (3) was reintroduced as part of a Federal program.
(Sec. 103) Requires the Secretary of the Interior (the Secretary) to publish a list of all non-native, human introduced bird species to which the MBTA does not apply that belong to biological families of migratory birds covered under any migratory bird conventions with Great Britain (for Canada), Mexico, Russia, or Japan.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Title II: Conservation of Neotropical Migratory Birds - Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Improvement Act of 2004 - (Sec. 202) Amends the Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Act (NMBCA) to increase the Federal share of costs for projects funded under that Act. Prescribes the form of payment for such projects undertaken in the United States and Canada versus Latin America and the Caribbean.
Establishes the Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Fund.
Increases the amount of funds that the Secretary may expend to administer the NMBCA.
Authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury to transfer to the Fund amounts that were in the Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Account immediately before the enactment of this Act.
Authorizes appropriations. Requires not less than 75 percent of such appropriations to be used for projects outside the United States. Prohibits expenditures for projects in Canada during a fiscal year unless the amount available to carry out NMBCA exceeds $10 million for that year.
People & committees
Rep. Gilchrest, Wayne T. [R-MD-1] · R–MD
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 299.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Resources. H. Rept. 108-520.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Resources. H. Rept. 108-520.
Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by Voice Vote.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Forwarded by Subcommittee to Full Committee by Voice Vote.
Subcommittee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife and Oceans.
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR E510)
Referred to the House Committee on Resources.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Apr 7, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.4114 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.4114 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.4114 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.4114 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.